If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
OR ARE THEY DIGGING IN THEIR HEELS?
by Sharon Rondeau
(May 19, 2012) — After Breitbart.com released an autobiographical pamphlet on May 17, 2012 from 1991 presumably given by Obama to his publisher stating that he was “born in Kenya,” many mainstream news sources reported it in one way or another. By the next day, some had changed the focus to an alleged mistake made by the publishing house in preparing Obama’s biography. One source issued an article entitled, “‘Born in Kenya’: Obama’s Literary Agent Misidentified His Birthplace in 1991.”
Breitbart reported that as of May 18, the mainstream media was largely refusing to report on the discovery of the statement that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. However, even upon its exclusive breaking of the story, Breitbart clarified its position by stating, “Andrew Breitbart was never a “Birther,” and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of “Birtherism.” In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. Yet Andrew also believed that the complicit mainstream media had refused to examine President Obama’s ideological past, or the carefully crafted persona he and his advisers had constructed for him.”
Why did Breitbart feel the need to qualify its findings?
An editorial at The Wall Street Journal insisted that the pamphlet contained “true fiction” and that Obama was a “fake Kenyan,” even making the excuse that perhaps “the young Obama himself was for a time under the misapprehension that he was born in Kenya.”
The International Business Times stated that “a group of latent nonbelievers, termed “Birthers,” have doubted the president’s citizenship and challenged his assertion that he was born in Hawaii.” If the information that Obama was born in Kenya emanated from him, why should it not be believed?
But then again, can anything Obama has said about his background be believed?
A writer at New York Magazine appears to believe Miriam Goderich, a co-owner of the publishing firm of Obama’s book, and features a photo of Obama possibly during his college days with the caption underneath, “Stop the lies.”
A CBS “news analysis” categorized under “Campaign 2012” began, “Sometimes, when you want to believe something badly enough, no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind. To understand how this plays out, consider the subset of Americans who still identify as “birthers.” Birthers are people who express their dislike of President Obama by arguing – forcefully – that he was not born in the United States, and is thus not eligible for the presidency.” The author, Brian Montopoli, is credited as a “senior political reporter.”
An initial story by Glenn Beck’s “The Blaze” reiterated the Breitbart article with some new information, but an update link yields an error message. In January 2010, Beck had sarcastically denied the questions about Obama’s background, stating that he “believed” Obama was “a citizen.” He did not use the term “natural born Citizen” as is written in the U.S. Constitution.
Business Insider stated the Breitbart is a “conservative muckraking site” and linked back to the White House website where Obama’s purported long-form birth certificate, declared a forgery by a group of criminal investigators, is still posted. A link at the bottom of the story which reads “via Drudge report” is dead.
HotAir.com continued to insist that because Breitbart had stated that he “accepts that O was born in Honolulu,” there was no controversy.
With the new revelation, why would someone “accept” something affirmed by a “computer-generated forgery?”
But what does his birth certificate say? What does the document allegedly held by the Hawaii Department of Health, which they refuse to show to anyone, say?
A reporter forABC’s “Nightline” stated that those questioning Obama’s birthplace showed “a lot of anger” when demanding answers from their congressman at a townhall meeting. The reporter in the undated video then interviewed Atty. Philip Berg, who launched several lawsuits against Obama and told the reporter that the “Certification of Live Birth” presented in June 2008 was “altered” and “not valid.”
In the 1991 pamphlet, it is also stated that Obama’s father was a “Kenyan finance minister.” That is not what Barack Obama Sr.’s biography states. If the biographical sketch was written by Obama for his publisher, did he exaggerate?
What kind of “tales” might have been “woven” about Obama’s alleged father? Having allegedly been born the son of a foreign national, how is that Obama was able to qualify as a “natural born Citizen” and run for the presidency?
There are other inconsistencies in Obama’s life which also have not been explained. A writer for ABC News stated that Obama had lived in two countries by the time he was ten, but the information published by Breitbart said it was three. Prior to the 2008 election, Chris Matthews of MSNBC had stated that Obama had been born in Indonesia.
Since a “change” to Obama’s stated birthplace has been noted to have occurred at the publishing agency in 2007, are mainstream reporters not curious as to why?
Perhaps the answer is within the “analysis” from CBS wherein the author quotes The Drudge Report as having asked, “How did the mainstream media miss this?”
If it is proven that Obama’s public life story is false, what will the mainstream media do? How will they explain their failure to “vet” Obama during the presidential campaign cycle? Shouldn’t they now be looking for the truth?
Are mainstream media members afraid that, like 12,500,000 other people presently, they will be out of a job if they are proven derelict in their duties?
Many sources state that simply being born in the United States or being a “citizen” is enough to qualify to run for president. However, several attorneys, writers, and citizens who have studied the writings of the Founding Fathers have stated that the citizenship of the parents, or at least the father, at the time of the person’s birth is equally important in determining citizenship.
If Obama was born somewhere in the United States, is it enough to qualify him under Article II of the U.S. Constitution? An attorney at the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has gone out of his way to argue that it is by using ellipses to omit vital information from his prospective audience, members of the U.S. Congress.
The Huffington Post claims that questions about Obama’s background are “racially-charged.” Saul Alinsky, in his book Rules for Radicals, advises organizers to “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
A second press conference will be held in late May or early June by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office to reveal further findings on Obama’s Selective Service registration card, the original of which the Selective Service Administration stated has been destroyed. Following the first press conference held on March 1, 2012, some members of the mainstream media were angry at the investigators’ conclusions.
Perhaps it is something more nefarious, such as threats from the federal government, which have perpetuated the mainstream media’s failure to seriously cover the matter of Obama’s past.
Will threats and intimidation be enough to allow Obama to be re-elected?